28 F. 114 | U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York | 1886
The defendants repaired the crown-sheets of the furnaces to the boiler of the plaintiff’s steam-tug, by cutting out parts of the iron, and putting in new, and riveting the new parts to the old. After the work was done one of the joints leaked, and the boat was returned to the defendants’ works several times, and the crown-sheets were caulked at that place. The defendants called on the plaintiff for the pay for the work. He claimed there should be a deduction for bad-workmanship, and loss of time of the tug in consequence. Five hundred dollars were deducted on that account, and
There is no question but that, as claimed and argued for the defendants, the acceptance of the $500 was a full settlement of all claim for any further damages for that for which it was paid and received, however great the damage might turn out to be, and however it might extend beyond the expectation of the parties. The evidence of this settlement rested wholly in parol, and what was settled for was a matter of fact, to be determined upon evidence. The parties settled what they agreed to settle. The plaintiff would have the right to expect that the work had been done in the usual manner, although defectively, and would not be bound to look for any injury to the structure of the furnaces out of the common course. The jury
In Lee v. Lancashire Ry. Co., L. R. 6 Ch. 527, a bill was brought to set aside a release of a claim for damages caused by an accident, and it was held, on appeal from Vice-Chancellor Maliks, that the receipt could be rebutted by evidence that the plaintiff did not receive the money in full satisfaction of all demands, and that the case should be tried at law, and the bill be dismissed. On the trial at law the question would be, as was submitted to the jury here, whether the demand in suit was one for which satisfaction had been received.
In Roberts v. Eastern Counties Ry. Co., 1 Fost. & F. 460, the plaintiff was injured on the defendant’s road, and his hat crushed, by being overturned in a ear. He did not know of any injury beyond that to his hat, and accepted two pounds for that, and gave a receipt, which was pleaded in bar to an action for the other injury. Lord Cockburn, G. J., said: “It cannot be seriously urged that, if plaintiff has been seriously injured, he is precluded from recovering because he agreed to accept two pounds for his hat.”
Although the defendants settled with and paid the plaintiff for all their bad work that he knew of, and could reasonably know of, they have not settled for this piece of bad work that he did not know of, and he appears to have properly recovered a verdict for that.
Motion for new trial overruled, stay of proceedings vacated, and judgment on verdict ordered.